Does a UN Resolution on Syria Mean Potential Peace?

Over the past few days, UNSC is addressing everything but the problem itself in Syria, writes Syed Ali Hasnian.

When there are complex problems, solutions must always be simple. The UN Security Council really believed in this saying, while hammering out a resolution to find peace in Syria over the last few days. It seems to have addressed everything, except the problem itself.

The resolution states that within six months, the process should establish “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance,” with UN-supervised “free and fair elections,” to be held within 18 months.

That is the good old diplomatic language we have heard in resolutions for peace in parts of Africa, but except in Namibia and Mozambique most efforts of the UN have come a cropper, forcing gargantuan peacekeeping missions in Congo and others in Sudan and Ethiopia to carry on for years in search for elusive peace.

Syria: A Hell-Hole Much Beyond Africa

Syria is a hell-hole much beyond any situation in Africa. It is so complicated, that it takes much time to absorb who exactly is fighting whom. To beat that, there are big powers and regional powers that have interests of their own, almost none are congruent.

The sectarian divide makes it worse, and with war crimes by both sides, to expect rapprochement sufficient enough to run a government without sectarian interests, is asking for the moon.

The UNSC obviously borrows language and concept from the Istanbul Process on Afghanistan, when it calls for a Syrian-owned and Syrian-led peace process. This is both unrealistic and clichéd, displaying only a resolve to hope that something somewhere may fall into place; probably one of the worst attempts of the world body to project itself as the world’s conscience keeper.

Terrorist Organisations Do Not Figure In Ceasefire

The reality is that the ceasefire it has called for, is supposed to be between the Syrian parties at conflict, i.e., Bashar Assad’s elements of the political divide and the Opposition.

It specifically mentions it has nothing to do with the numerous shades of terrorist organisations fighting for the control of the real estate.

This is to ensure it does not come in the way of ongoing aerial operations by Russia, and the combine of the US and its various allies, against the terror groups

While the resolution does not mention anything about regime change, the Russian Foreign Minister immediately after the adoption, spoke on the necessity of no regime change, citing examples of Saddam Hussain in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

However, including the Syrian diaspora residing abroad within the ambit of a future vote (as contemplated), would mean the end of Assad.

Ceasefire Monitoring A Pre-Requisite to Its Effectiveness

Undoubtedly, to make such a process work, there has to be a simultaneous effort at establishing a ceasefire; which group of the Syrian opposition is to be the party to this and whether others will follow suit has been left vague.

Monitoring of ceasefire is a pre-requisite to its effectiveness, but there are as yet no mentions of a UN Military Observer (UNMO) group for this purpose. Even if one is established, this will be one of the most challenging missions which the UNMO community will ever face.

Quite obviously, no demobilisation of any of the armed elements is even contemplated.

With presence of various terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaida and in places Daesh itself (in the near vicinity), and no plans of ceasefire with them, the chances of violence receding appears remote.

(The writer, a former GOC of the army’s 15 Corps, is now associated with Vivekanand International Foundation and Delhi Policy Group)